§1. In his publication of the texts from the archive of the Ur III
merchant Tūram-ilī, Marc van de Mieroop (1986, 3) presented
a list of 13 Sumerian month names attested in the archive.[1]
Due to the recent and excellent treatment of several new texts from
this archive by Steven Garfinkle (2000), this list may now be further
completed. The new texts published by Garfinkle add the two months šeš-da-gu7
and tam2-hi-ru to the previously known month names,
offering the distribution of month names in table 1.[2]

§2. As can be seen from the table, the texts 92 and
99[3]
are the only documents from the archive offering any direct clues concerning
the order of the months in the calendar(s). The absence of more than
one year formula in these two loan documents implies that the loans
began and expired within one single year (i.e. ŠS 8 and ŠS
9 respectively). Text 92 demonstrates that the month kir11-si-ak
(when the contract was drawn up) occurred before giš-apin (when
the loan was to be repaid) while text 99 suggests, following the same
logic, that the month nig2-e-ga should be placed before the
repayment month giš-apin. In any case, we may be reasonably confident
that the three months kir11,-si-ak, nig2-e-ga
and giš-apin all belonged to the same (see below) calendar in the Tūram-ilī
archive.

Table 1[4].
The different month names attested in the archive of Tūram-ilī
according to Garfinkle 2000.

§3. The large number of month names attested in the texts has led to
the logical conclusion that the Tūram-ilī archive employed
more than one calendrical system.[5]
It appears that a similar practice can also be observed in the private
archive of the entrepreneurial shepherd SI.A-a[6]
as well as in the small village of Išān Mizyad situated
approximately 4 kilometers north of ancient Kiš.[7]
All tablets of Tūram-ilī are supposed to belong to
a single archive in the, still unidentified, city or center where
Tūram-ilī was active. The alleged employment of different
calendars by Tūram-ilī’s scribe(s) is puzzling and
appears to be highly impractical from an administrative point of view.
One explanation could be that Tūram-ilī’s scribe(s)
employed foreign calendars depending on the origins of the different
clients in the documents and/or in which cities the contracts were drawn
up.[8]

§4. A problem with this explanation is that it does not make sense
that the private scribes and archivists of Tūram-ilī
should be interested in adjusting their administration to the various
calendars of Tūram-ilī’s clients. Tūram-ilī’s
business interests have been believed to reach out and cover all of
Babylonia[9]
and would thus include a number of different calendars. In some cases
(i.e. the texts with ezen-dŠul-gi or še-KIN-ku5),
identical month names refer to entirely different months depending on
the local calendar from whence they derive. To administer an archive
with texts dated according to all these calendars would be most difficult,
if not completely impossible.

§5. Moreover, the texts in the archive itself speak against this explanation:
in three texts from IS 2 and 3 (Garfinkle 2000, 116,
123,
129), the
merchant Nūr-Adad (identified by his seal in all the cases)
is receiving silver from Tūram-ilī. If Tūram-ilī
adjusted his calendar to his clients, it is difficult to explain why
the first text has been dated with a month specific for the Ur/Puzriš-Dagan
calendar (ezen-mah), the second with a month name only attested in Lagaš
(ezen-dLi9-si4), while the third text
uses a month that is only found in the texts from the archives of SI.A-a
and Tūram-ilī (gi-sig-ga). In fact, these three texts
strongly suggest that the months ezen-mah, ezen-dLi9-si4
and gi-sig-ga belonged to one (hitherto unknown) calendar used in the
Tūram-ilī archive. A similar connection can be found
between the Ur/Puzriš-Dagan month ezen-an-na and the Nippur month giš-apin
in two texts from IS 1 and 2 where Tūram-ilī is delivering
building materials to NE.NE (Garfinkle 2000, 105 and
114).[10]

§6. Finally, in the few cases when the locations of the transactions
are specified in the texts, the month names used do not fit the local
calendars of these places: In Garfinkle 2000, 95, a certain Ilī-arani[11]
receives peas from Tūram-ilī in E-sagdanaki,
which has been thought to refer to the toponym in Nippur or Lagaš.[12]
However, the month name in the text (ezen-an-na) is specific for the
calendar used in the provinces of Puzriš-Dagan and Ur.[13]
On the other hand, in Garfinkle 2000, 85, Šu-Mama[14]
is receiving silver from Tūram-ilī in the city of Ur,
but the contract is dated with a month only used in the city of Lagaš
(ezen-dLi9-si4). Both nos. 109 and
128 of Garfinkle’s texts suggest that Tūram-ilī was
active in Uruk but only the latter text is dated by month. The text
contains the month name ezen-mah, which is the most common month in
the Tūram-ilī archive(s).

Table 2. The month names in Garfinkle’s texts and their occurrences
in other cities or archives.[19]

The Ur III calendar of Uruk remains somewhat uncertain but if Mark
Cohen’s reconstruction is correct (1993, 208-210), the month ezen-mah
was not used in this city.[20]
In fact, if we do not count the Tūram-ilī texts, the
month ezen-mah is (again) only found in the Ur/Puzriš-Dagan calendar.

§7. The attestations in other calendars of the month names (or the
festivals on which the months were based) in the Tūram-ilī
calendar(s) can be demonstrated as shown in table 2 above.

§8. There are alternative explanations for the apparent use of more
than one calendrical system in the archive of Tūram-ilī.

§8.a.1. We have to consider the fact that the personal name Tūram-ilī
was rather common in the Ur III period. In fact, we find officials from
all over the state from a variety of professions called Tūram-ilī
and many texts (and therefore also month names) in the “Tūram-ilī
archive” may in reality derive from archives belonging to different
people.[21]
Our Tūram-ilī can be identified as a merchant involved
in the loan business of (mainly) silver during the final stages of the
Ur III state (see note 28) in northern Babylonia. As an example of a
text with a different merchant called Tūram-ilī, one
can mention AUCT 1, 757 from Šulgi 40 dated with the tenth
month in the Puzriš-Dagan calendar (eleventh in Ur):

§8.a.2. The text shows that another merchant called Tūram-ilī
was active in Uruk, at least during the end of the reign of Šulgi.
This, in turn, raises the question if the above-mentioned texts Garfinkle
2000, 109 and
128, where a certain Tūram-ilī is delivering
barley connected to the bala in Uruk, could rather be referring to this
Uruk based individual. In the former text from IS 2, our Tūram-ilī
and two of his colleagues (all identified through their seals) are receiving
the barley balance of the bala in Uruk (si-i3-tum še bala
a3 Unugki-ga) from this unidentified Tūram-ilī.
It appears highly plausible that this Tūram-ilī refers
to the same individual as we find in text 128 where Šu-Ninšubur[23]
receives barley on account of the bala (mu bala-a-še3) in
the same city. The main problem with the identification of the merchant
in AUCT 1, 757 and this official in Uruk is that it would require
that he remained in business for at least 28 years.[24]
Therefore, the merchant in AUCT 1, 757 may perhaps rather be
referring to an earlier predecessor stationed in the city.

§8.a.3. The second highly interesting aspect of AUCT 1, 757
is that the transaction in the text takes place in the E-sagdana of
Nippur. Not only does this imply that the E-sagdanaki in
the already mentioned Garfinkle 2000, 95 refers to the toponym in Nippur,
but it also shows that Uruk had business interests in this institution.
This should perhaps be taken as an indication that Tūram-ilī
in the rather uncharacteristic[25]
text Garfinkle 2000, 95 may also have been an Uruk merchant. With all
these different individuals named Tūram-ilī in mind,
it may appear somewhat injudicious to add to the calendar the month
šeš-da-gu7 (otherwise only found in Ur/Puzriš-Dagan) from one
single text (Garfinkle 2000, 89) that, apart from the appearance of
a Tūram-ilī who delivers silver, shows no prosoprographical
or structural connection to other texts from the archive.

§8.b.1. Even if we can securely identify Tūram-ilī
in the texts, we cannot presuppose that all texts mentioning a certain
individual were archived in one single archive belonging to that individual.
This may appear to be an obvious remark but the fact is that when it
comes to the private archive(s) of Tūram-ilī (and indeed
also of SI.A-a), the main emphasis has been placed on the presence in
the text of the personal names rather than the context in which the
names occur. However, texts are archived by the party that has acquired
a specific right. Only when one or several individuals (usually identified
by his/their seal(s)) is/are receiving (šu ba-ti) silver (or, in a few
cases, some other products) from Tūram-ilī (ki Tūram-ilī-ta)
do we have any reason to assume that the texts were stored in Tūram-ilī’s
loan-archive.[26]
Texts where Tūram-ilī is supplying products in other
contexts (sale contracts,[27]
bala deliveries, etc.) may certainly also have been archived by the
administrators of Tūram-ilī, but it is by no means
impossible that these transactions were filed separately from his loan
contracts.

§8.b.2. Thus, while Tūram-ilī may have used multiple
calendrical systems, we cannot presuppose that these systems were used
together in one single archive. More importantly, if Tūram-ilī
is merely mentioned (e.g. Garfinkle 2000, 133) or appears as the receiver,
thus being the debtor rather than the creditor (e.g. Garfinkle 2000,
77, 109,
113,
124,
131), the texts were certainly not archived by Tūram-ilī’s
organization. Obviously, this has to be taken into account when we try
to reconstruct the calendar used in Tūram-ilī’s loan-archive.
For example, in Garfinkle 2000, 131, our Tūram-ilī
(identified by his seal) is borrowing flour from another official named
Tūram-ilī. Since the texts are dated with the Adab
month šu-gar-ra it seems rather likely that this flour-lending Tūram-ilī
came from this city. This makes it highly plausible that the similar
flour-loan from the same year and month (Garfinkle 2000, 130) also should
be attributed to this Adab official. This would mean that the month
šu-gar-ra is not attested in the Tūram-ilī archive,
which in turn rather significantly would attenuate the Adab connection
to the archive.

§8.c. The many month names found in Tūram-ilī’s texts
may be the result of a sudden change or modification of the calendar.
There are many examples in the Ur III period of calendars that for various
reasons were altered. Thus, while Tūram-ilī possibly
made use of more than one calendrical system, we cannot presuppose that
the different systems were used at the same time. According to the texts
collected by Garfinkle, Tūram-ilī’s texts span altogether
18 years including the reigns of the last three kings of the Ur III
state.[28]
During this politically dynamic period, the Ur III state went from being
the major political, cultural and military power in Mesopotamia to an
unimportant petty state in southern Babylonia. Already from the very
beginning of the reign of Ibbi-Suen, we have to assume that the power
in northern Babylonia shifted from the south to the major Amorite settlements
in the northern and central parts of Babylonia. One possible example
of a new element in the calendar that may be ascribed to this political
development is the archive’s only Semitic month tamhiru attested
in one single text dated to IS 1 (Garfinkle 2000, 102).

§9. There can be no doubt that the use of more than one calendar within
one single archive at the same time must have been not only highly impractical
but also perfectly pointless. Nevertheless, previous studies of the
Tūram-ilī archive have produced more month names than
one calendar could possibly need, and it has therefore been assumed
that the archive employed multiple calendars. However, earlier discussions
of the Tūram-ilī archive display some methodological
problems. First of all, scholars have been too impetuous in identifying
any individual called Tūram-ilī with our particular
man. Once Tūram-ilī has been identified, it has been
assumed that every time he is mentioned in a text—regardless of the
context—that particular text was filed in the Tūram-ilī
archive. Moreover, two further aspects need to be considered before
any attempts of reconstructing the calendar can be undertaken: 1) Tūram-ilī
could (and probably did) keep more than one archive in his organization;
2) one or several month names in the calendar may have been replaced
by other names during the time span of the archive.

§10. In section 8(a-c) I have shown that if these aspects are accounted
for, the number of different months attested in Tūram-ilī’s
loan-archive should be reduced. The single text with the Ur/Puzriš-Dagan
month šeš-da-gu7 (Garfinkle 2000, 89) as well as the two texts
with the Adab month šu-gar-ra (nos. 130 and 131) were not archived by
our Tūram-ilī and should be attributed to the archives
of other officials called Tūram-ilī. As for the single
attestation from IS 1 of the Old Babylonian month tamhiru (Garfinkle
2000, 102), it seems plausible that this month did not represent a regular
element in our calendar. The occurrence of this Semitic month in the
otherwise Sumerian calendar of Tūram-ilī may perhaps
be explained by the increased influence of the Amorites in the region
during the reign of Ibbi-Suen.

§11. Thus, we end up with one single Sumerian calendar, or rather twelve
different month names, used by Tūram-ilī’s administration.
While the sequence of the months remains uncertain, several of the month
names can be connected to each other within one single calendar. In
addition to the direct connections of the months kir11-si-ak,
nig2-e-ga and giš-apin that are found in the above-mentioned
texts 92 and 99 (see §2), I have tried to show (see §5 and note 10)
that several other months can be connected on the basis of structural
similarities of the texts and/or prosoprography (i.e. 119?-
122;
105-
114; 123-
116-129). This new calendar appears to be hitherto unique,
although seven of its twelve months also appear in the texts from the
SI.A-a archive(s) (table 3).

Table 3. The different month names in the archive of Tūram-ilī
and their different connections to each other.[29]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mark Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda
1993)

Steven Garfinkle, Private Enterprise in Babylonia at the End of
the Third Millennium BC [Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University]
(Ann Arbor 2000).